Originally posted by srussell0018 And regardless, there's more than one side to Philosophical arguments such as dualism. That's the whole point of Philosophy. They don't all agree on the same thing, thus mind/brain dualism being a debate between people who believe in mind/brain dualism, and those who believe the mind to be reducible to the physiological constructs of the brain, hence my point that Philosophy and Science can coincide, and not be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
The point is that even if science uncovers new evidence which would support one theory (mind=brain), it doesn't mean we should just stop thinking about it, or stop discussing it.
The mind/brain dualism debate is an illusory debate now because we are uncovering enough information about the brain and how neural structures give rise to consciousness to say that one side is almost surely wrong. That means that there is no point, whatsoever in thinking about it or discussing it anymore. You seem to be talking the painfully naive and misguided view that Philosophy is about mental masturbation as opposed to an attempt to know reality. Aristotle started this trend and many sheep followed, which has resulted in pointless philosophical theories such as Berkley's monism and Bergson's élan vital. If you want to go ahead and keep debating dualism and materialism then go ahead, but don't think that it has any value to our knowledge of the world and don't expect any serious philosopher interested in discovering truth to follow.
Your view of the relationship of Science and Philosophy also seems to be pretty naive and misguided. One of the few things that you got right, now that I read your previous posts, is that sciences get their start as Philosophy. Even the whole concept of Science itself got its start as philosophy of science. That is exactly what you are doing when you are taught the scientific method, for example. This doesn't mean, however, that it earns Philosophy any special free reign on scientific topics. There are things in which the a priori methods of Philosophy are simply useless in uncovering truth. You cannot simply reason your way into the truth of the nature of consciousness, for example. Even in ethics (much to the reluctance of many moral philosophers) it is becoming clearer that Philosophy alone is insufficient to allow us to get to the truth of what constitutes an action that promotes well-being or one that promotes suffering.
Which again brings me to my original point that Philosophy that is not informed by the descriptions of the world that the sciences make is bound to be a massive failure or mostly, a waste of time.
So please, stop putting Philosophy in a pedestal.
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
like what? I need some intellectual ammo to use against this bastards in debate. I know the easiest thing to do is to point out that consciousness can be turned off with drugs, altered with chemicals, and irreparably damaged/changed with physical trauma..and we don't have a shred of evidence for consciousness existing apart from a brain. Until they get a piece of evidence to show otherwise they automatically lose..but I'm always looking for more stuff to thrash them with. :)
Yes, those are perfectly good examples. What neuroscience is uncovering is that there is an uncompromising dependence of consciousness on the brain. As you said, you damage a part of your brain, and so do the faculties that are dependent on that part of the brain. I think the new trend of dualists is going to be pretty much the same that the vitalists took when some of their predictions about life got shot to . Mainly that the brain is a necessary thing for consciousness to arise, but not sufficient, which is, of course, complete nonsense. As creationists begin to get slammed more and more on evolution, expect this bull to be promoted by the Discovery Institute.
A very good book that Lira recommended and that I now recommend to anyone interested in these things is The Brain and the Meaning of Life by Paul Thagard. Also, read anything by Patricia Churchland, who virtually started the whole eliminative materialism movement and got serious philosophers of mind to realize that they couldn't keep ignoring brain science. A great place to start would be her 1986 book Neurophilosophy.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
The mind/brain dualism debate is an illusory debate now because we are uncovering enough information about the brain and how neural structures give rise to consciousness to say that one side is almost surely wrong.
I don't think that the subject is not worth debating until you can make that sentence read "The mind/brain dualism debate is an illusory debate now because we have uncovered enough information about the brain and how neural structures give rise to consciousness to say that one side is absolutely wrong."
I don't know if that was the meaning you intended, and while I'm surely no student of neuroscience, if they've almost proved one wrong, that shouldn't mean it should be debated no longer.
Much like the debate on the origins of the Universe, we are living in the experiment, which makes it almost insurmountably difficult to come to a concrete conclusion one way or another. One sure-fire way of proving mind/brain dualism to be wrong would be to have a perspective of whether the mind exists post-mortem, but since obviously that's impossible to know or test, we can only posit what happens to the mind when you die.
The thing I was never able to get around in the Philosophy of Mind classes I took was free thought. Obviously our brain (or mind) reacts to stimuli that are perceived through various senses, but where do things like abstract thought, or "random" thoughts come from? You'd seem to suggest that they're just completely random physiological or chemical reactions taking place in the brain, which would seem to suggest that we don't have control over any thoughts we have or actions that we take.
The origin of thoughts was one thing that I always thought couldn't be reduced down to a physiological process, or at least didn't want to believe. If "I" (being my mind, my soul, my lifeforce, or whatever you want to call it) am not actively creating these thoughts in my brain, then it would seem to me to suggest that things like free will are an illusion, and that everything that we do or think is completely random, or simply a reaction to some other stimulus.
Again, I've never taken a neuroscience class, and I'd be interested to learn more about that subject, so perhaps that notion could be rather easily explained; I'm just saying that that was the part of the reducibility argument that I always had a problem with.
Desiderata
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
I don't think that the subject is not worth debating until you can make that sentence read "The mind/brain dualism debate is an illusory debate now because we have uncovered enough information about the brain and how neural structures give rise to consciousness to say that one side is absolutely wrong."
I don't know if that was the meaning you intended, and while I'm surely no student of neuroscience, if they've almost proved one wrong, that shouldn't mean it should be debated no longer.
Much like the debate on the origins of the Universe, we are living in the experiment, which makes it almost insurmountably difficult to come to a concrete conclusion one way or another. One sure-fire way of proving mind/brain dualism to be wrong would be to have a perspective of whether the mind exists post-mortem, but since obviously that's impossible to know or test, we can only posit what happens to the mind when you die.
The thing I was never able to get around in the Philosophy of Mind classes I took was free thought. Obviously our brain (or mind) reacts to stimuli that are perceived through various senses, but where do things like abstract thought, or "random" thoughts come from? You'd seem to suggest that they're just completely random physiological or chemical reactions taking place in the brain, which would seem to suggest that we don't have control over any thoughts we have or actions that we take.
The origin of thoughts was one thing that I always thought couldn't be reduced down to a physiological process, or at least didn't want to believe. If "I" (being my mind, my soul, my lifeforce, or whatever you want to call it) am not actively creating these thoughts in my brain, then it would seem to me to suggest that things like free will are an illusion, and that everything that we do or think is completely random, or simply a reaction to some other stimulus.
Again, I've never taken a neuroscience class, and I'd be interested to learn more about that subject, so perhaps that notion could be rather easily explained; I'm just saying that that was the part of the reducibility argument that I always had a problem with.
I never took any of these courses but I think you are talking about Absurdism, no?
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by Desiderata
I never took any of these courses but I think you are talking about Absurdism, no?
Some of it, yeah, although Absurdism is usually applied to the seeking of the meaning of life, but I suppose the two topics can coincide.
woscar
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
I don't think that the subject is not worth debating until you can make that sentence read "The mind/brain dualism debate is an illusory debate now because we have uncovered enough information about the brain and how neural structures give rise to consciousness to say that one side is absolutely wrong."
I don't know if that was the meaning you intended, and while I'm surely no student of neuroscience, if they've almost proved one wrong, that shouldn't mean it should be debated no longer.
There is no such thing "absolute" knowledge. While there surely are absolute truths about the universe, one simply cannot "know" that one has arrived at such truth. And hence why I said that it has proved to be "almost" surely wrong. You seem to be aware of this and will contradict yourself in the next paragraph.
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
Much like the debate on the origins of the Universe, we are living in the experiment, which makes it almost insurmountably difficult to come to a concrete conclusion one way or another. One sure-fire way of proving mind/brain dualism to be wrong would be to have a perspective of whether the mind exists post-mortem, but since obviously that's impossible to know or test, we can only posit what happens to the mind when you die.
See how you contradicted what you said before? You are requesting of neuroscience and philosophy of mind to provide "absolute proof" in order to end the debate and then you are claiming that "absolute proof" would be impossible.
This is not absolute proof, epistemologically speaking but it turns to be devastating for philosophers who defend dualism:
Neuroscience has shown that consciousness is highly (if not entirely) dependent on the brain. It has shown that damage to part of the brain translates into loss of faculties like the ability to recognize faces, to understand language, to have empathy, to have emotions, to have long-term memory, etc. So you can clearly see that it's not a case that everyone with brain damage has their mind/soul/life force intact and they just can't get the words out. Everything about your mind can be damaged by damaging your brain. When someone talks of an "afterlife" what that person is asking of you is to believe that you can damage one area of the brain and some faculties are lost, then damage another area and yet more faculties are lost, but you can just damage the whole brain at death and just be magically shot off from your body and continue "living" with all your faculties intact.
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
The thing I was never able to get around in the Philosophy of Mind classes I took was free thought. Obviously our brain (or mind) reacts to stimuli that are perceived through various senses, but where do things like abstract thought, or "random" thoughts come from? You'd seem to suggest that they're just completely random physiological or chemical reactions taking place in the brain, which would seem to suggest that we don't have control over any thoughts we have or actions that we take.
The origin of thoughts was one thing that I always thought couldn't be reduced down to a physiological process, or at least didn't want to believe. If "I" (being my mind, my soul, my lifeforce, or whatever you want to call it) am not actively creating these thoughts in my brain, then it would seem to me to suggest that things like free will are an illusion, and that everything that we do or think is completely random, or simply a reaction to some other stimulus.
Again, I've never taken a neuroscience class, and I'd be interested to learn more about that subject, so perhaps that notion could be rather easily explained; I'm just saying that that was the part of the reducibility argument that I always had a problem with.
Bingo!
And these are the things that still have any value in being debated, which you will soon see get slanted in one direction through scientific discovery. I predict that it will come to the realization that free will is an illusion that the brain constructs and a lot of people denying it because of personal inconvenience.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
I predict that it will come to the realization that free will is an illusion that the brain constructs and a lot of people denying it because of personal inconvenience.
But I don't wanna believe that :( lol
Desiderata
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
Some of it, yeah, although Absurdism is usually applied to the seeking of the meaning of life, but I suppose the two topics can coincide.
true, searching for the meaning of life without being able to find it or happiness in it. So the 3 laws apply on what to do with Absurdismbut that is not important in this Thread.
woscar
Spam
quote:
Originally posted by woscar
I can't believe I used to believe (pun intended) this .
Moongoose
Well, at least you got better.
Capitalizt
HD version of bananaman interview on youtube..Start at 2:50 to skip announcements..
